Anti-Virus Proactive Security Challenge - Unexpected Results

What do you guy`s make of this

Results and comments - www.matousec.com

 

Sorry, I got distracted by your avatar. Uhm, Comodo rocks? I don't know what to tell you. They've been known for having the best firewall. I've been using it with Defnese+ and Mamutu and feel perfectly safe. I don't even need an anti-virus anymore. Although the Panda security icon is so darn good. I would install it just for the icon (jk)

 

Hi Tinderbox,

'Matousec' tests 'rule-based'/HIPS security products (and its not an AV test).
While that's not unvalid, their testing rigor excludes f.i. virtualization and/or sandboxing.
Therefore, programs/suites that f.i. offer (partial) sandboxing aren't fully tested for their protection capacity/level.
And some programs that can offer excellent protection, like for instance DefenseWall, aren't tested at all because they fail at being enough 'rule-based'.

Also, the testing scheme is a bit weird, where software has to pass a test level in order to be eligible to be tested at the next level.
However, if a product fails at a certain test, Matousec will claim it failed at all the following tests.
F.i. if product XYZ can be tested at a 100 levels but fails at test level nr. 31, the tests for product A are stopped.
Even if it perhaps could have done well at all 100 levels except for level 31.
XYZ therefor reaches a 30% score where it in theory might have scored 99%.
That's why you can see astounding low scores for products from renowned security software names.

Gizmo's Freeware/TechSupportAlert has a more detailed article on why Matousec's testing isn't all that; link.
Matousec's testing regime certainly has some merit but it does need to be seen in perspective.

 

These were posted a while ago. As Baserk said, take these tests witha grain of salt. They're looking for something very specific.

 

Still, Comodo rocks and is by far the best protection you can get for free in my opinion.